i think the real problem is that each individual crime adds to the sentence and with computers if you steal a database with 1000 credit card numbers it often counts each stolen number as an individual crime and so suddenly 30 days in jail for stealing a credit card, now gets you 30,000 days.
the problem appears to be that the criminal code can't handle computer crimes properly. The current laws seem to be like if you charged a bank robber for each account that they had to withdraw the money from in order to give him the big sack of money.
it sounds like this person probably deserves jail, however not a life sentence.
The life sentence is just a threat used to mentally break weak willed persons. Sometimes it works and people turn snitch and sometimes it doesn't work and people go to jail. Sabu should have gone to jail if whatever he was fighting for was truly just.
The fact is, whatever he was fighting for was meaningless to him which is why he wasn't willing to go to jail for it.
If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.
The principle idea behind punishment proportional to the severity of the crime is that it gives criminals an incentive not to escalate:
Pickpocket someone - Have to pay penalty or a short visit to the prison (depending on how often caught)
Threaten someone to rob them - Potentially get into prison for few years
Kill someone to get their money - Go to prison for a very long time
Raising the punishment for 'stealing' or for 'threatening' (depending on how one interprets LulzSec's actions) to the same or even higher level than killing means the next group of crackers will make sure to erase their tracks, even if it means killing a few people here or there. It's not going to make punishment worse for them but increases their chance to get away. And the US will finally have their home-grown terrorists it has always been waiting for.
If you're a real vigilante then you have to be prepared for anything the prosecution can dish out. Life in prison, accusations of crimes you never committed, being set up or framed, or just serving the time based on the vigilante actions you did. The point I have to make is, if you're willing to break the law because it's so politically important then you should be willing to go to prison for the same reason. You should not fear prison if you're serious about it.
And if you're not serious about it then you shouldn't be doing it and you shouldn't be encouraging kids to get involved. Sabu was not serious, and he encouraged kids who aren't serious to get involved in shit which was serious so that he could save himself from his own mistakes. He's a coward and snitch.
Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.
Sabu claimed to be a vigilante hero. He claimed to be fighting for causes greater than himself. When shit hit the fan he was a complete fraud. There is no reason to ever respect Sabu in that context.
If you're a vigilante you're going to go to prison. It's something all vigilantes must know. It might be for 124 years or for months, but you'll be convicted of something eventually and you'll go to prison. If you're not prepared to go to prison then don't be a vigilante, it's damn simple.
If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.
Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.
The problem with this case, and with the US justice system in general, is the complete absence of any sense of proportionality. Sabu faces life in prison, but a drunk driver can run down schoolkids and face (on average, across states) 20 years. Sabu faces 124 years in prison for posting credit card numbers on the internet, but running a sex-slave trade is only good for 15 years.
Hacktivist heroes tend to go to prison. Some of them go to prison for a long time. He chose the path he was on when he knew the risks. When you take on the most powerful interests in the world you can't turn snitch.
Julian Assange shouldn't be surprised if he ends up in prison. Bradley Manning probably wasn't surprised to end up in prison. That is where you go when you get involved in vigilante action. But to claim to be a vigilante hero on one hand but then turn on other vigilante heroes out of fear of going to prison? That is a traitor, a snitch, and there is no point in making excuses for that.
You're right if you piss off the prosecutor or get involved in political protests you could be facing all of that. That is why immature kids shouldn't get involved in stuff without fully thinking it through. Sabu didn't think it through because he was a dumbass kid who got in over his head. If he would have taught it through then he would have known just by taking part in certain ops and being involved with certain groups, he had a higher probability of going to prison, a high probability of being the target of extrajudicial vigilantes, etc. You don't go pissing off large corporations, and expect never to get caught, never go to to jail, never to have your life or family attacked. Sabu knew and when it was his turn to take a sacrifice for his team he turned snitch.
There have been betrayers and spies within every politically active group back to the Magna Carta. They're part of the reason MLK and John Lewis had to plan on going to jail (note: jail, not prison). It's shockingly difficult to stand up to the threats/pressure/mental anguish that Power is able to apply, and very few people are able to play Prisoner's Dilemma rationally when faced with actual, real-world penalties. Hate Sabu all you want, but don't pretend that you wouldn't sell out AnonFag342 in exchange for the chance to be present at your kid's graduation or wedding, unless you've had to make that choice.
I haven't sold anyone out. I simply refuse to involve myself with people who offer life in prison as part of the friendship. Sabu knew who and what he was involved with. He chose to get involved with what he got involved with. He pretended that he was dedicated and fully committed to what he claimed to be with. He's a fraud, a traitor, and a snitch. Don't pretend to believe in a cause you won't go to prison for. If you're not pretending then you'll be prepared to face the consequences. So when you say something like: "actual, real-world penalties." you imply that it was just a game to Sabu. That is the problem I have with Sabu, he got himself in so deep to wind up in a leadership position and he wasn't even serious enough about it to be willing to go to prison? If he was so damn concerned about his child he should have thought about that before risking his life and his child getting involved with Antisec. You're presenting a picture of Sabu as a person who had no expectation of ever getting caught, who never considered he might have to go to prison and would never see his kid again, who wasn't prepared to take any loses yet was willing to take risks? He's a pathetic snitch and the word was invented for people like him.
If you do the crime, do the time. Don't pin it on other people to save yourself. If you do then you're a snitch and coward. No excuses.
And not everyone is like Sabu. There is no making excuses for his behavior by claiming he was weakened, or by acting like the government made him snitch. He cannot hide behind his child. He chose to become a snitch to save himself because he didn't plan on going to prison. Sabu is a snitch and it's that plain and that simple. A serious person would go to prison for their own crimes and not drag other people into prison for their decisions. If you agree to commit your life or your honor to a pledge or common interest(like Antisec or whatever he claimed to be fighting for in his ops), then you don't have the right to change your mind at the last minute just because you might go to jail.
Don't get involved with actions if you can't handle the consequences. That applies to Sabu, Bradley Manning, anyone. If you knew the consequences before you got involved, and you choose to turn traitor (as was the case with Sabu), then no one should feel sorry for you. You threw your old life, beliefs, everything, under the bus to save yourself. That means you cannot be counted on to stick to any beliefs or your own rules. Remember, Sabu was claiming other people were snitches and while he was doing that he was snitching and entrapping people.
Power is able to apply, and very few people are able to play Prisoner's Dilemma rationally when faced with actual, real-world penalties. Hate Sabu all you want, but don't pretend that you wouldn't sell out AnonFag342 in exchange for the chance to be present at your kid's graduation or wedding, unless you've had to make that choice.
This quote is exactly the kind of weakness I mean. If you're an activist, a hacktivist, willing to risk prison for your beliefs by breaking the law, then you really have no business putting your kid on such a pedestal. You cannot be both a hacker dedicated to a cause in one moment and then on the other hand dedicated to your child. If you dedicate yourself to your cause, it eventually will outrank the child. Sabu if he had a
Not everyone wants to be promoted. Sometimes the best job in an organization is the job you have. If the pay is right and the job is right why do you need to get promoted?
If you can work from home, you can't need much of a security clearance.
DoD does allow most civilian workers to work from home sometimes, even those with a clearance. Can't directly access the airgapped network (or above), but not everything you do needs direct access to uber secret data. Telework.gov
Government jobs like that are about to be cut. Defense jobs are being cut as we speak.
I doubt someone on the other side of the planet can procure a security clearance. Working in a position that requires one is an excellent way to insure your position can't be easily outsourced.
And aren't necessarily worth having. It's two jobs in one. It's twice the responsibility for the same work.
Fuck that and fuck you, you ignorant bootlicker. That mentality is exactly what keeps people in chains. How about we live in a society where activism doesn't entail being shot dead on the street for protesting medicaid changes, or taxes, or video game bans? How about we aspire to something better than being serfs.
If you're too weak in the knees to face the consequences of your actions then you should choose a different course of action.
If you're willing to break the law as an activist then be prepared to go to prison for as long as necessary. That is something that hacktivists and activists need to start thinking about and planning for.
It's not about what the judges choose to do or what the sentencing guidelines say. It's about prosecutorial intimidation e.g. "you're going away for the rest of your life or you cooperate" which occurs way before a judge ever gets a chance to rule on sentencing.
This is why the vast majority of cases are closed with a nolo contendo (no contest) plea bargain and never even make it to trial. There is very little justice left in the US (in)justice system for the average citizen without vast resources to defend themselves.
The problem is once he cooperated then according to game theory it becomes a situation where everyone else involved has to now cooperate or all the time would be piled on them instead. The first person to cooperate changes the game for everyone else. Sabu cooperating changed the options for everyone else who now has to worry that Sabu could have toward authorities that they did way more than they actually did. At the same time some people might be completely framed by Sabu and now they either cooperate or go to prison for years on something they didn't even do.
The plea bargain system in particular is appalling. Either accept a lesser charge or we'll hit you with everything and nail you to the wall somehow. And indeed that is what is happening here.
The real question is why was he willing to rat out his own side? Did he not know he could go to jail for a really long time?
Copying large amounts of personal information from corps with bad security and posting it on the Intarwebs, while not stealing, isn't exactly legal. Now that being said, threatening a 124 year sentence for it is bullshit of the highest order.
But that's the wonderful thing about the US criminal code, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you've actually done anything wrong or not - A DA or cop with a vendetta will find something to fuck you over with eventually because so many things have been criminalized that it's impossible to conduct a meaningful life without being a criminal any more. And all the time on Law & Order, the cops extort business owners into cooperating because "wouldn't it be awful if you had inspectors and tax auditors crawling up your ass forever?" and the district attorneys openly extort witnesses into cooperating by threatening to steal the rest of their lives, but it's a Good Thing because they're after Bad People.
And if it goes too far, that's exactly how dictatorship works - it's not that you have to cooperate, but bad things might happen if you don't.
If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime. Turning snitch because you're afraid of life in prison still makes you a snitch.
If they want to get you they'll find something on you until they get you. The point is this, if you're a political activist then you gotta plan on getting got. Plan ahead of time on going to prison or don't be any kind of political activist. MLK knew he was going to be arrested a lot and knew he was going to be killed. So did most others.
So why are the current generation of so called hacktivists populated by these coward snitches like Sabu who start out talking all brave and tough but then get questioned by men in uniform and suddenly they turn completely against their crew and their side? Either you're with Antisec or you're not. The posers are the problem. Sabu was like the agent provocateur who would encourage people to commit crimes so the authorities could have something on them and pressure some of them into becoming traitors.
It's basically confirmed and carved onto his forehead now. He's a rat. He snitched to avoid doing time. And he didn't just snitch, he actively helped to entrap his comrades which means he either never really believed in what he was preaching, or he simply doesn't value the lives of the others who risked their futures for that agenda. It's disgusting really to do that.
If you're going to believe in something then you have to be prepared to go to prison for that. If you're not prepared to go to prison then you don't believe in shit and shouldn't be posing as a hacktivist. It's not a surprise that Sabu is a fraud and a poser, but it is a surprise that he is a traitor to the lengths that he went. He was trying to sucker people into his black hole so that as many people with his beliefs would go to prison as possible.Whether you agree with his beliefs or not, would you want someone to infiltrate your church, or whatever community group you're involved with and start baiting you and others into doing illegal stuff so that your group and you yourself have to go to prison and have your life ruined?
It's really simple, if you believe in something enough to break the law in protest then you have to be prepared to take on the ultimate consequence of life in prison should that be the consequence. There should be no setting people up, no snitching on other who are on your side. If you're fighting for a cause you truly believe in with all of yourself then you cannot snitch, you cannot set other people up who believe in the same cause and fight you do, that is the ultimate traitor.
Sabu was the ultimate traitor. He claimed to believe in a set of beliefs he did not really believe in. He helped to entrap young and impressionable idealists. A lot of people call Adrian Lamo a snitch but what Adrian Lamo did wasn't snitching. Adrian Lamo never claimed to be the leader of Wikileaks, never asked Bradley Manning to contact him and give him classified materials, never even seemed like the type of person who you'd want to try that with. Sabu on the other hand seemed to be in with Wikileaks, seemed to truly believe in Antisec, was encouraging people to conduct illegal activities all while setting them up to be entrapped?
Sabu is the ultimate scumbag traitor. He didn't do it because he thought he was protecting other people as in the case with Adrian Lamo, he didn't do it out of some sort of selflessness or for any moral reason, he did it for pure selfishness. He did the crime but he didn't want to do the time and would rather entrap his comrades than serve his own punishment when caught. He was like Judas.
When he arrives at prison he will have a target on his back. He will have no friends and will have to be put in the protective custody section of the prison. In that section of the prison he will again have no friends because most of the people there are snitches or sex offenders. People who don't believe in anything, people who can't be trusted.
If you're willing to break the law for some cause, whether it be Antisec, Lulzsec or whatever the hell else you claim to do it for, then you have to be prepared to go to prison for that cause. If you're not prepared to go to prison for that cause then don't break the goddamn law. Part of protesting is going to prison. Part of being an activist if you're doing it as social activism is to be willing to go to prison, potentially for life. If you're not then get another profession.
He has already been sentenced to a lifetime of cooperation with the feds in exchange for a pittance and an assurance he won't do hard time... or any time maybe. The courts are just a formality at this point; just to placate those calling for his and Anonymous' head.
There is no other word for someone like Sabu. Sabu is a snitch. It does not matter what excuse he used to snitch, he's a snitch. He turned on his own to avoid prison, there is nothing respectable or trustworthy about such a person. His word his shit and he has no honor or self respect.
Whether you agree with the Antisec philosophy or not, whether you agree with the Lulzsec philosophy or not, Sabu represented and talked up a philosophy he didn't believe in. He encouraged others to break the law in a philosophy that when time came for him to serve prison time to prove he believed in, really never believed in.
Nothing is worse than a traitor and Sabu is a traitor to his cause. I'm not even someone who agrees with his cause, but I don't like bullies or traitors.
HINT: if you say ARM you're an idiot. ARM is great for low power usage... but is not playing in the same ballpark with x86 for horsepower. There's also nothing at all on the horizon to compare to the AMD CPU/GPU fusion in the ARM world.
I suggest ARM. Now what?
It's just better designed and design is important.
I pioneered online learning back in 1994 with the Internet. After a year of struggling with online learning with post secondary learners and the problems that they faced, I came quickly to the conclusion that nothing beats face to face learning. I wrote up a multipage report on the problems and presented it to the Dean of our department. The report was ignored, shelved and never read. The attitude was that I must of been doing something wrong and that they could do it better.
Almost 20 years later, the same problems are occuring for online learning, it focuses on one predominat learning style: seeing. There are 4 basic learning styles: seeing, hearing, doing and thinking. The "seeing" learning style is characterized by a person who can pickup a book or read a webpage and gather knowledge in that manner. A "hearing" oriented learning, learns by listening. They are characterized by being able to follow verbal instructions or directions easily: "go two blocks North, turn left, go 4 blocks then turn right next to the blue garbage bin, etc..". The "doing" learning style, learns by doing the work, this is the best way to learn. Our institute is heavily loaded with lab work, up to 50% of classroom time is spent in the lab. Another way to re-inforce doing is by taking notes, either through pen and paper or laptop. The last learning style is "thinking". A person who is predominantly a thinker will have to "think" about what was said or presented to him in order to understand. They "go away" for a little while to assimilate the information then return back to the conversation. A typical reaction from a thinker is that they will briefly look away when you tell them something new. Nobody has just one learning style, we have combinations of all 4 and are predominate with one or two.
If I gave a University theatre style lecture, no interaction with the students, straight power point presentations with powerpoint handouts already given out, the students will remember about 10-15% after 3 days. If it was a smaller class size of 30 students or less, interactive questions between the students and instructors, note taking, then after 3 days, the students will remember about 30%. If it was a lab with hands on exercises and interaction, the students will remember about 80% after 3 days.
Online learning fails by not delivering multiple learning styles and by missing the teacher/student interaction. It falls somewhere in the University large theatre learning results - that's why the high failure rate. Often, it takes a person to explain how things work. I found that the majority of students were particularly hesistant to use online tools (email, forums, blogs, twitter, 1-800 numbers) to contact the instructor to ask questions when things didn't make sense. They preferred to struggle "days" trying to figure it out until they could meet face to face.
The best learning is obviously "to do", my preference is to have no theory classes, just lab classes and pass on the information on a need to know basis. It's time to do this lab, this is what you need to know to do this. In the past, I've found that no matter how many times, you talk about a particular topic: in the classroom, online, at the beginning of a lab, it will be forgotten until the time is right and the student is ready for the information. In one course, I used to repeat the same explanation to each student in the lab when they needed to know it. I would repeat the exact same 5 minute explanation over 100 times a week. The students appreciated the one on one time and I got really good at explaining it! LOL.
The problem with having "just lab" classes, is that it flies in the face of everything that Universities teach about learning. The mantra is present the material, give an example, students practice the material and then assess the students. That is the "best practice" (I hate that phrase!) teaching method. In my labs, I don't feel that it is right to be
I will say it's as simple as that. You're correct if you're a smart or very high IQ person and you're presented with an online course and they basically give it all to you at once then you can breeze right through it. This is something a very smart person can do, but a person who is not as smart would never be able to do that and would benefit from a slower paced classroom style instruction.
There are pros and cons for both. In certain subjects and classes it's better to be in person because the subject is very complicated. Cryptography in my opinion isn't that subject at least for me but subjects which require really profound changes in thinking style or which are heavy in mathematics in my opinion benefit from in person context/contact. Even if you are highly intelligent there are some forms of mathematics which you just don't know and which aren't simple and easy no matter how smart you are.
As far as cheating goes I would say these online classes are harder to cheat in than the offline classes. In offline classes when you take an exam it's not at a professional testing center. In the online classes exams are at professional testing centers which seem designed to prevent any kind of cheating. They put a camera on you Vegas style and watch your every move as you take the test. You basically can't cheat as they also make you empty all your pockets etc.
So I think online classes don't really have a problem with cheating anymore. It's just a matter of certain kinds of students can learn by teaching themselves and certain kinds of students can't. If you're self motivated, and if you want to learn, you'll gain as much from online classes as from offline. If you need to be pushed you will probably flunk out. If you're not highly intelligent you'll probably funk out. Online classes seem to have no mercy because every mistake you make is magnified too.
Slashdot Mirror
i think the real problem is that each individual crime adds to the sentence and with computers if you steal a database with 1000 credit card numbers it often counts each stolen number as an individual crime and so suddenly 30 days in jail for stealing a credit card, now gets you 30,000 days.
the problem appears to be that the criminal code can't handle computer crimes properly. The current laws seem to be like if you charged a bank robber for each account that they had to withdraw the money from in order to give him the big sack of money.
it sounds like this person probably deserves jail, however not a life sentence.
The life sentence is just a threat used to mentally break weak willed persons. Sometimes it works and people turn snitch and sometimes it doesn't work and people go to jail. Sabu should have gone to jail if whatever he was fighting for was truly just.
The fact is, whatever he was fighting for was meaningless to him which is why he wasn't willing to go to jail for it.
If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.
The principle idea behind punishment proportional to the severity of the crime is that it gives criminals an incentive not to escalate:
Raising the punishment for 'stealing' or for 'threatening' (depending on how one interprets LulzSec's actions) to the same or even higher level than killing means the next group of crackers will make sure to erase their tracks, even if it means killing a few people here or there. It's not going to make punishment worse for them but increases their chance to get away.
And the US will finally have their home-grown terrorists it has always been waiting for.
If you're a real vigilante then you have to be prepared for anything the prosecution can dish out. Life in prison, accusations of crimes you never committed, being set up or framed, or just serving the time based on the vigilante actions you did. The point I have to make is, if you're willing to break the law because it's so politically important then you should be willing to go to prison for the same reason. You should not fear prison if you're serious about it.
And if you're not serious about it then you shouldn't be doing it and you shouldn't be encouraging kids to get involved. Sabu was not serious, and he encouraged kids who aren't serious to get involved in shit which was serious so that he could save himself from his own mistakes. He's a coward and snitch.
Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.
Damn, the ACs are out with good comments today. Just to strengthen his case, you may even know you are committing a crime. For example as we can learn from the "Don't talk to the police video" did you know possession of a lobster can be a crime. In fact policemen may show that you are a criminal just because you were confused.
Sabu claimed to be a vigilante hero. He claimed to be fighting for causes greater than himself. When shit hit the fan he was a complete fraud. There is no reason to ever respect Sabu in that context.
If you're a vigilante you're going to go to prison. It's something all vigilantes must know. It might be for 124 years or for months, but you'll be convicted of something eventually and you'll go to prison. If you're not prepared to go to prison then don't be a vigilante, it's damn simple.
If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.
Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.
The problem with this case, and with the US justice system in general, is the complete absence of any sense of proportionality. Sabu faces life in prison, but a drunk driver can run down schoolkids and face (on average, across states) 20 years. Sabu faces 124 years in prison for posting credit card numbers on the internet, but running a sex-slave trade is only good for 15 years.
So, by all means, obey all the laws. Make sure you're not one of the people committing three felonies a day. If you've pissed off someone in the prosecutor's office, breaking even one law can cost you your house, job, family, friends, and freedom.
Hacktivist heroes tend to go to prison. Some of them go to prison for a long time. He chose the path he was on when he knew the risks. When you take on the most powerful interests in the world you can't turn snitch.
Julian Assange shouldn't be surprised if he ends up in prison. Bradley Manning probably wasn't surprised to end up in prison. That is where you go when you get involved in vigilante action. But to claim to be a vigilante hero on one hand but then turn on other vigilante heroes out of fear of going to prison? That is a traitor, a snitch, and there is no point in making excuses for that.
You're right if you piss off the prosecutor or get involved in political protests you could be facing all of that. That is why immature kids shouldn't get involved in stuff without fully thinking it through. Sabu didn't think it through because he was a dumbass kid who got in over his head. If he would have taught it through then he would have known just by taking part in certain ops and being involved with certain groups, he had a higher probability of going to prison, a high probability of being the target of extrajudicial vigilantes, etc. You don't go pissing off large corporations, and expect never to get caught, never go to to jail, never to have your life or family attacked. Sabu knew and when it was his turn to take a sacrifice for his team he turned snitch.
There have been betrayers and spies within every politically active group back to the Magna Carta. They're part of the reason MLK and John Lewis had to plan on going to jail (note: jail, not prison). It's shockingly difficult to stand up to the threats/pressure/mental anguish that Power is able to apply, and very few people are able to play Prisoner's Dilemma rationally when faced with actual, real-world penalties. Hate Sabu all you want, but don't pretend that you wouldn't sell out AnonFag342 in exchange for the chance to be present at your kid's graduation or wedding, unless you've had to make that choice.
I haven't sold anyone out. I simply refuse to involve myself with people who offer life in prison as part of the friendship. Sabu knew who and what he was involved with. He chose to get involved with what he got involved with. He pretended that he was dedicated and fully committed to what he claimed to be with. He's a fraud, a traitor, and a snitch. Don't pretend to believe in a cause you won't go to prison for. If you're not pretending then you'll be prepared to face the consequences. So when you say something like: "actual, real-world penalties." you imply that it was just a game to Sabu. That is the problem I have with Sabu, he got himself in so deep to wind up in a leadership position and he wasn't even serious enough about it to be willing to go to prison? If he was so damn concerned about his child he should have thought about that before risking his life and his child getting involved with Antisec. You're presenting a picture of Sabu as a person who had no expectation of ever getting caught, who never considered he might have to go to prison and would never see his kid again, who wasn't prepared to take any loses yet was willing to take risks? He's a pathetic snitch and the word was invented for people like him.
If you do the crime, do the time. Don't pin it on other people to save yourself. If you do then you're a snitch and coward. No excuses.
And not everyone is like Sabu. There is no making excuses for his behavior by claiming he was weakened, or by acting like the government made him snitch. He cannot hide behind his child. He chose to become a snitch to save himself because he didn't plan on going to prison. Sabu is a snitch and it's that plain and that simple. A serious person would go to prison for their own crimes and not drag other people into prison for their decisions. If you agree to commit your life or your honor to a pledge or common interest(like Antisec or whatever he claimed to be fighting for in his ops), then you don't have the right to change your mind at the last minute just because you might go to jail.
Don't get involved with actions if you can't handle the consequences. That applies to Sabu, Bradley Manning, anyone. If you knew the consequences before you got involved, and you choose to turn traitor (as was the case with Sabu), then no one should feel sorry for you. You threw your old life, beliefs, everything, under the bus to save yourself. That means you cannot be counted on to stick to any beliefs or your own rules. Remember, Sabu was claiming other people were snitches and while he was doing that he was snitching and entrapping people.
Power is able to apply, and very few people are able to play Prisoner's Dilemma rationally when faced with actual, real-world penalties. Hate Sabu all you want, but don't pretend that you wouldn't sell out AnonFag342 in exchange for the chance to be present at your kid's graduation or wedding, unless you've had to make that choice.
This quote is exactly the kind of weakness I mean. If you're an activist, a hacktivist, willing to risk prison for your beliefs by breaking the law, then you really have no business putting your kid on such a pedestal. You cannot be both a hacker dedicated to a cause in one moment and then on the other hand dedicated to your child. If you dedicate yourself to your cause, it eventually will outrank the child. Sabu if he had a
So looking at how Apple actually treats workers why would you expect any management innovation from them?
Not everyone wants to be promoted. Sometimes the best job in an organization is the job you have. If the pay is right and the job is right why do you need to get promoted?
If you can work from home, you can't need much of a security clearance.
DoD does allow most civilian workers to work from home sometimes, even those with a clearance. Can't directly access the airgapped network (or above), but not everything you do needs direct access to uber secret data.
Telework.gov
Government jobs like that are about to be cut. Defense jobs are being cut as we speak.
I doubt someone on the other side of the planet can procure a security clearance. Working in a position that requires one is an excellent way to insure your position can't be easily outsourced.
And aren't necessarily worth having. It's two jobs in one. It's twice the responsibility for the same work.
If you're doing work anyone can do then perhaps it should be given to the person overseas who can do it for less.
Fuck that and fuck you, you ignorant bootlicker. That mentality is exactly what keeps people in chains. How about we live in a society where activism doesn't entail being shot dead on the street for protesting medicaid changes, or taxes, or video game bans? How about we aspire to something better than being serfs.
If you're too weak in the knees to face the consequences of your actions then you should choose a different course of action.
If you're willing to break the law as an activist then be prepared to go to prison for as long as necessary. That is something that hacktivists and activists need to start thinking about and planning for.
It's not about what the judges choose to do or what the sentencing guidelines say. It's about prosecutorial intimidation e.g. "you're going away for the rest of your life or you cooperate" which occurs way before a judge ever gets a chance to rule on sentencing.
This is why the vast majority of cases are closed with a nolo contendo (no contest) plea bargain and never even make it to trial. There is very little justice left in the US (in)justice system for the average citizen without vast resources to defend themselves.
The problem is once he cooperated then according to game theory it becomes a situation where everyone else involved has to now cooperate or all the time would be piled on them instead. The first person to cooperate changes the game for everyone else. Sabu cooperating changed the options for everyone else who now has to worry that Sabu could have toward authorities that they did way more than they actually did. At the same time some people might be completely framed by Sabu and now they either cooperate or go to prison for years on something they didn't even do.
The plea bargain system in particular is appalling. Either accept a lesser charge or we'll hit you with everything and nail you to the wall somehow. And indeed that is what is happening here.
The real question is why was he willing to rat out his own side? Did he not know he could go to jail for a really long time?
Copying large amounts of personal information from corps with bad security and posting it on the Intarwebs, while not stealing, isn't exactly legal. Now that being said, threatening a 124 year sentence for it is bullshit of the highest order.
But that's the wonderful thing about the US criminal code, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you've actually done anything wrong or not - A DA or cop with a vendetta will find something to fuck you over with eventually because so many things have been criminalized that it's impossible to conduct a meaningful life without being a criminal any more. And all the time on Law & Order, the cops extort business owners into cooperating because "wouldn't it be awful if you had inspectors and tax auditors crawling up your ass forever?" and the district attorneys openly extort witnesses into cooperating by threatening to steal the rest of their lives, but it's a Good Thing because they're after Bad People.
And if it goes too far, that's exactly how dictatorship works - it's not that you have to cooperate, but bad things might happen if you don't.
If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime. Turning snitch because you're afraid of life in prison still makes you a snitch.
If they want to get you they'll find something on you until they get you. The point is this, if you're a political activist then you gotta plan on getting got. Plan ahead of time on going to prison or don't be any kind of political activist. MLK knew he was going to be arrested a lot and knew he was going to be killed. So did most others.
So why are the current generation of so called hacktivists populated by these coward snitches like Sabu who start out talking all brave and tough but then get questioned by men in uniform and suddenly they turn completely against their crew and their side? Either you're with Antisec or you're not. The posers are the problem. Sabu was like the agent provocateur who would encourage people to commit crimes so the authorities could have something on them and pressure some of them into becoming traitors.
'nuff said
It's basically confirmed and carved onto his forehead now. He's a rat. He snitched to avoid doing time. And he didn't just snitch, he actively helped to entrap his comrades which means he either never really believed in what he was preaching, or he simply doesn't value the lives of the others who risked their futures for that agenda. It's disgusting really to do that.
If you're going to believe in something then you have to be prepared to go to prison for that. If you're not prepared to go to prison then you don't believe in shit and shouldn't be posing as a hacktivist. It's not a surprise that Sabu is a fraud and a poser, but it is a surprise that he is a traitor to the lengths that he went. He was trying to sucker people into his black hole so that as many people with his beliefs would go to prison as possible.Whether you agree with his beliefs or not, would you want someone to infiltrate your church, or whatever community group you're involved with and start baiting you and others into doing illegal stuff so that your group and you yourself have to go to prison and have your life ruined?
How can you prepared Sabu to Aaron Swartz? Sabu is more comparable to Albert Gonzalez from the Shadowcrew. He was turned into a snitch too http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14Hacker-t.html
It's really simple, if you believe in something enough to break the law in protest then you have to be prepared to take on the ultimate consequence of life in prison should that be the consequence. There should be no setting people up, no snitching on other who are on your side. If you're fighting for a cause you truly believe in with all of yourself then you cannot snitch, you cannot set other people up who believe in the same cause and fight you do, that is the ultimate traitor.
Sabu was the ultimate traitor. He claimed to believe in a set of beliefs he did not really believe in. He helped to entrap young and impressionable idealists. A lot of people call Adrian Lamo a snitch but what Adrian Lamo did wasn't snitching. Adrian Lamo never claimed to be the leader of Wikileaks, never asked Bradley Manning to contact him and give him classified materials, never even seemed like the type of person who you'd want to try that with. Sabu on the other hand seemed to be in with Wikileaks, seemed to truly believe in Antisec, was encouraging people to conduct illegal activities all while setting them up to be entrapped?
Sabu is the ultimate scumbag traitor. He didn't do it because he thought he was protecting other people as in the case with Adrian Lamo, he didn't do it out of some sort of selflessness or for any moral reason, he did it for pure selfishness. He did the crime but he didn't want to do the time and would rather entrap his comrades than serve his own punishment when caught. He was like Judas.
When he arrives at prison he will have a target on his back. He will have no friends and will have to be put in the protective custody section of the prison. In that section of the prison he will again have no friends because most of the people there are snitches or sex offenders. People who don't believe in anything, people who can't be trusted.
If you're willing to break the law for some cause, whether it be Antisec, Lulzsec or whatever the hell else you claim to do it for, then you have to be prepared to go to prison for that cause. If you're not prepared to go to prison for that cause then don't break the goddamn law. Part of protesting is going to prison. Part of being an activist if you're doing it as social activism is to be willing to go to prison, potentially for life. If you're not then get another profession.
He has already been sentenced to a lifetime of cooperation with the feds in exchange for a pittance and an assurance he won't do hard time... or any time maybe. The courts are just a formality at this point; just to placate those calling for his and Anonymous' head.
There is no other word for someone like Sabu. Sabu is a snitch. It does not matter what excuse he used to snitch, he's a snitch. He turned on his own to avoid prison, there is nothing respectable or trustworthy about such a person. His word his shit and he has no honor or self respect.
Whether you agree with the Antisec philosophy or not, whether you agree with the Lulzsec philosophy or not, Sabu represented and talked up a philosophy he didn't believe in. He encouraged others to break the law in a philosophy that when time came for him to serve prison time to prove he believed in, really never believed in.
Nothing is worse than a traitor and Sabu is a traitor to his cause. I'm not even someone who agrees with his cause, but I don't like bullies or traitors.
What would you suggest instead?
HINT: if you say ARM you're an idiot. ARM is great for low power usage... but is not playing in the same ballpark with x86 for horsepower. There's also nothing at all on the horizon to compare to the AMD CPU/GPU fusion in the ARM world.
I suggest ARM. Now what?
It's just better designed and design is important.
I don't get it. If it's supposed to be the future why does it cling to the past in that respect? ARM is the future.
And it's going to cost Sony big time.
I cannot understand why a modern game system would go with x86.
I pioneered online learning back in 1994 with the Internet. After a year of struggling with online learning with post secondary learners and the problems that they faced, I came quickly to the conclusion that nothing beats face to face learning. I wrote up a multipage report on the problems and presented it to the Dean of our department. The report was ignored, shelved and never read. The attitude was that I must of been doing something wrong and that they could do it better.
Almost 20 years later, the same problems are occuring for online learning, it focuses on one predominat learning style: seeing. There are 4 basic learning styles: seeing, hearing, doing and thinking. The "seeing" learning style is characterized by a person who can pickup a book or read a webpage and gather knowledge in that manner. A "hearing" oriented learning, learns by listening. They are characterized by being able to follow verbal instructions or directions easily: "go two blocks North, turn left, go 4 blocks then turn right next to the blue garbage bin, etc..".
The "doing" learning style, learns by doing the work, this is the best way to learn. Our institute is heavily loaded with lab work, up to 50% of classroom time is spent in the lab. Another way to re-inforce doing is by taking notes, either through pen and paper or laptop. The last learning style is "thinking". A person who is predominantly a thinker will have to "think" about what was said or presented to him in order to understand. They "go away" for a little while to assimilate the information then return back to the conversation. A typical reaction from a thinker is that they will briefly look away when you tell them something new.
Nobody has just one learning style, we have combinations of all 4 and are predominate with one or two.
If I gave a University theatre style lecture, no interaction with the students, straight power point presentations with powerpoint handouts already given out, the students will remember about 10-15% after 3 days. If it was a smaller class size of 30 students or less, interactive questions between the students and instructors, note taking, then after 3 days, the students will remember about 30%. If it was a lab with hands on exercises and interaction, the students will remember about 80% after 3 days.
Online learning fails by not delivering multiple learning styles and by missing the teacher/student interaction. It falls somewhere in the University large theatre learning results - that's why the high failure rate. Often, it takes a person to explain how things work. I found that the majority of students were particularly hesistant to use online tools (email, forums, blogs, twitter, 1-800 numbers) to contact the instructor to ask questions when things didn't make sense. They preferred to struggle "days" trying to figure it out until they could meet face to face.
The best learning is obviously "to do", my preference is to have no theory classes, just lab classes and pass on the information on a need to know basis. It's time to do this lab, this is what you need to know to do this. In the past, I've found that no matter how many times, you talk about a particular topic: in the classroom, online, at the beginning of a lab, it will be forgotten until the time is right and the student is ready for the information. In one course, I used to repeat the same explanation to each student in the lab when they needed to know it. I would repeat the exact same 5 minute explanation over 100 times a week. The students appreciated the one on one time and I got really good at explaining it! LOL.
The problem with having "just lab" classes, is that it flies in the face of everything that Universities teach about learning. The mantra is present the material, give an example, students practice the material and then assess the students. That is the "best practice" (I hate that phrase!) teaching method. In my labs, I don't feel that it is right to be
I will say it's as simple as that. You're correct if you're a smart or very high IQ person and you're presented with an online course and they basically give it all to you at once then you can breeze right through it. This is something a very smart person can do, but a person who is not as smart would never be able to do that and would benefit from a slower paced classroom style instruction.
There are pros and cons for both. In certain subjects and classes it's better to be in person because the subject is very complicated. Cryptography in my opinion isn't that subject at least for me but subjects which require really profound changes in thinking style or which are heavy in mathematics in my opinion benefit from in person context/contact. Even if you are highly intelligent there are some forms of mathematics which you just don't know and which aren't simple and easy no matter how smart you are.
As far as cheating goes I would say these online classes are harder to cheat in than the offline classes. In offline classes when you take an exam it's not at a professional testing center. In the online classes exams are at professional testing centers which seem designed to prevent any kind of cheating. They put a camera on you Vegas style and watch your every move as you take the test. You basically can't cheat as they also make you empty all your pockets etc.
So I think online classes don't really have a problem with cheating anymore. It's just a matter of certain kinds of students can learn by teaching themselves and certain kinds of students can't. If you're self motivated, and if you want to learn, you'll gain as much from online classes as from offline. If you need to be pushed you will probably flunk out. If you're not highly intelligent you'll probably funk out. Online classes seem to have no mercy because every mistake you make is magnified too.